Iran having nukes would be even worse.

Being a Republican means never having to learn from your mistakes.

And after the US strikes all those countries with missiles, then what do you supposed would happen next?

You honestly want a leader who is on record saying he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth to have nuclear weapons at his disposal?

Lordy.

First, to call him a leader is a bit of a stretch. The Supreme Leader of Iran has all of the power. The president can only serve a max of 8 years. The Supreme Leader is for life. And the Supreme Leader controls the armed forces and all national security decisions.

Second, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad didn't get to where he is by being suicidal. Wiping Israel off the face of the earth is the populist view point of many in the Middle East and he was almost certainly appealing to his base. If he actually made any major move toward Israel, Iran would get turned into a glass parking lot.

Third, are you actually for an unprovoked US attack on a THIRD freakin' Middle Eastern country? Are you out of your fucking mind?

Fourth, there's some argument to be made that he was misinterpreted. Maybe, maybe not. But it's worth investigating before the fucking Republican hot heads go and attack A THIRD FUCKING MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRY.

Well, assuming they are about to acquire nuclear weapons, what exactly do YOU propose?

Yet they suspended their program and aren't anywhere near the capability of making one yet Israel can have access to at least 200 of them?

All the while a more dangerous and unstable nation in Pakistan has actually capability when Iran does not and isn't near the possibilty of creating one any time soon.

I'd be more worried about the admin authorizing a fake incident that gives us an excuse to take action than Iran attempting to develop nuclear power.

If they aren't near the capability, then I agree, explore diplomatic solutions instead of military action. Military action should be a last resort in this instance, but, if we have intelligence saying that Iran is close to having the capability of nuclear weapons, then I am all for bombing that capability away.

Can your Republican mind really not contemplate anything but war and missile attacks as a solution to everything?

Political pressure and peace talks are working with North Korea. How about that for an idea?

I repeat: Being a Republican means never having to learn from your mistakes.

come on were still having huge problems fighting tribesman on the Mountainous Afghanistan/Pakistan border after 7 years and you want to take over a whole country with mountains?

Nobody knows where all the Iranian facilities are. Bombing them is useless. If there is an attack, it will solely be for political reasons. Neocons fail to grasp the limitations of military power -- they think there's a Charles Xavier in the NSA basement that magically informs the Pentagon where all the enemies and their weapons are located. Oh, if only there's an airstrike, everything will be unicorns and rainbows again!

All those in favor of making the incredibly STUPID mistake of invading yet another sovereign middle eastern country please click here: http://www.armedforcescareers.com/ the armed forces will need anyone they can get if we do.

All those in favor of NOT making the incredibly stupid mistake of invading another sovereign country please click here: http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/politics/con ... gress.aspx to get contact info of your duly elected senator/congressperson/potus and tell not to make the same mistake for a second time.

When everyone around you is bad, maybe it's time to turn to a mirror?

It might be just me, but I could swear I heard about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and threatening the world few years ago. Don't you think someone just tries to make up reasons for doing what they want?

I never said anything about invading Iran, there is a big difference between a strategic bombing and an invasion.

Also, none of us know what the intelligence is saying, or how reliable it really is. But all of that said, if they have reliable information that Iran is close to nuclear capability, and their intelligence knows a majority of the strategic locations, then I am all for bombing them to take away nuclear capability, assuming diplomatic negotiations have failed.

How do you know the information is reliable? That intelligence knows a majority of anything?

We need to learn the lesson of Iraq here.

So who defines when diplomatic negotiations have failed? If they don't want to do whatever US says, then negotiations have failed and they can be bombed? Don't you think though that Iran, being a local superpower, can actually answer this time, unlike Iraq?

You don't know who you're talking to obviously. "Attacks as a last resort." "Reliable intelligence." "Weapons of mass destruction." That all sounds so frighteningly familiar and yet said with no irony or sense of history whatsoever.

Reminds me of a buddy of mine that keeps dating idiots and never figuring out what the problem was.

Why is this still even talked about in vaguely serious manner???? Nothing will happen, if anything happens it will be an Israeli response along the lines of the Osirak bombing in the 1980s. And even that is unlikely since the Iranians are only sabre rattling in the same way Republicans sable rattle i.e. to keep the more extreme supporters happy with words.

I will say the idea that the US military would actually have a problem if they actually did engage in something as monumentally hilarious as this is erroneous, the US military in a conventional conflict could swat anybody else like a fly and I will even include the highly well organized French Army in this. The Iranians have aging F-14 tomcats and Tanks based on the ancient M-60, the idea this would cause the American military problems is bonkers.

Anyhow its not happening so Loyal doesn't have to hightail it to New Zealand anytime soon.

You mentioned Iran and New Zealand together, that was the secret code needed to get me to post, bravo!

Depends on what you refer as "military problems". Would USA win? Yeah. But expect an actual invasion be a great deal harder than Iraq - In terms of time span, the amount of USA soldiers required, and the amount of money spent.

Iran is covered in deep mountains on all sides (as opposed to open desert in Iraq), and the effective cutting of roads on their border areas is going to make the progress of USA troops extremely slow, often impossible. The land area is 4 times larger than Iraq. The population is 70 million (Iraq has 29 million). The active military troops consist of 1 million, and the military service pool has 11 million people. Iran is much more unified as a nation than Iraq, and the people will have a very strong motivation to defend their country (as opposed to Iraqi people).

No matter how much advanced technology you have, some basics in war still remain the same as they have always been. You can invade only with infantry, and infantry is going to have a hell of a difficult time in Iran. And USA doesn't have that good of a history of facing guerrilla war in geographically difficult environment.

Iran is a disaster waiting to happen for USA forces, if they ever go there. I certainly think they can win, but the cost would be massive, both in money and american lives.

So don't expect it to be nearly as easy as Iraq. Iran is on a whole different league.

Draft is one thing you're going to have.